Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Here is a quote from Sheikh Taj Aldin Al-Hilali's sermon during Ramadan.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He also thinks that women should not "sway suggestively", wear make-up, or go out without wearing a hijab.

(Quotes from 7Days 27th Oct., 2006)

This is so shocking and blatantly s.e.x.ist and misogynistic that it isn't funny.

Many men and brainwashed women think this way though. Perhaps someday men will be held accountable for their bad behaviour and disrespect of women. Afterall, any intelligent man knows that a woman is his EQUAL and is not just around for s.e.x.ual gratification and house cleaning. The rest are just Neanderthalish morons.

I seriously hope that the Islamic population in Australia get rid of this man, unless they agree that what he says is in line with what the Quran teaches about women.

I read that he has been suspended - and rightly too, he went too far to suggest it is the woman's fault for s.e.x.ual crimes.


Islam does ask believers, men and women, to dress modestly. Women have more to cover up than men, due to biology - and in any case believers are told to 'guard their eyes' i.e. don't ogle.

And dressing modestly is actually part of many religions - look at the habits of nuns, headcoverings of Mother Teresa and her sisters, robes of monks, covered heads of othodox Christian ladies etc etc.


On the question of dress though - it reminds me of a Dave Chappelle joke (a black standup comic from the States - loads of clips on youtube).

I paraphrase :

That's another thing men keep getting wrong - we approach these women dressed skimpily and get the retort "just because we dress this way doesn't make us hoes"

Don't get me wrong - you women are absolutely right - just because you dress that way doesn't make you hoes.

Buuuut - this is where it's confusing for guys....... you're are dressing like hoes.... I mean it's like if Dave Chappelle dressed like a cop and stood at a corner, someone runs up to me and says 'come quick I need help'. I would just reply 'just because I dress like THIS doesn't make me a cop!'

I mean come on ladies - you are wearing the hoes uniform!!


The ladies in the audience were laughing the loudest.



Cheers,
Shafique

Well, I think we can all agree that a woman who wears a stringy top and a mini-skirt is asking for men's eyes to follow her. Women who wear really tight clothes that have half of their breasts hanging out also are asking for men to pay attention to them. It is universal that women who dress this way are going to attract men, in fact most women who dress like that are trying to attract men. Not to be raped, but to get attention for a date perhaps. A woman who dresses in a skimpy way should never be touched or harrassed because she is still a human being who deserves respect. If you ask her for a date and she says no, then just back off and try to your luck with someone else. If some woman is reading this and thinks that she has the right to dress in a skimpy way by showing cleavage and lots of leg and stomach etc. and yet doesn't want any male attention - then she should seriously reconsider her way of thinking. By the way, this does NOT include the beach or pool. Those are places for swimming and tanning - so women should definitely not be expected to cover up there. Men should stay away if they can't treat women in bathing suits with respect.

If I see a good looking man who has a great ass in his jeans and a tight t-shirt with a buff upper body, I have never walked up to him and touched him or said s.e.x.ually explicit things to him. I sneak some looks, but don't stare, and certainly don't think less of the man because he is attractive. Why some men think they can act in a ing way and then blame the woman for being attractive is beyond logic and human ethics.

A woman who does not cover her hair, her arms or her legs below the knees is not immodestly dressed at all in my opinion. If a woman covers her torso all the way to her knees, is she not modest? Her breasts, bum and s.e.x.ual organs are covered. Please explain why uncovered arms, calves and hair are considered so sleazy by some men? Men should not be staring or treating women badly - PERIOD. Men in the rest of the world have learned how to look discreetly and behave themselves in the presence of women - so why can't some men from other cultures learn the same thing? (Because they don't actually respect women to begin with? Women = s.e.x. in their view?)

If men do not cover their forearms, calves and hair, then women should not be asked to do the same. There is no difference in biology in that regard. Any man who thinks that women don't find men as equally nice to look at is deluded. A double standard should not be maintained, and the fact that holy books written by men support a double standard is disappointing. Should I conclude that religion is not for women then, if we are to be treated like lesser beings?

Agree with you Kanelli - well said.


The only minor quibble will be the last paragraph about covering one's calf and hair.

According to Islam men too should cover to below the knee, but you are right muslim men aren't asked to cover their calves or hair out of modesty.

The Prophet, pbuh, said that a woman's hair is part of her beauty. But this is not unique to Islam, as I pointed out nuns etc all cover their hair as a sign of modesty.

There is a Hadith which says that a sign of the latter days will be the clothing of people : Women will go out clothed, but might as well be naked, the fashion will be to have flowing hair showing - resembling the tail of a horse - and men will also keep long hair and dress in a way that they will be mistaken for women!

In the Quran, where women are asked to cover up, men are also asked to cover up (in fact men are mentioned first). Women have more/different 'assets' and the rules of dress reflect this.

Cheers,
Shafique

Kanelli - your last sentence also begs an answer.

Islam only differentiates between men and women where their is a biological or social requirement. Islam recognises the reality of the differences - in some regards men and women are not alike.

You would never say:
"Should I not believe in sport if men and women are not treated the same - male boxers don't fight female boxers, men and female athletic races are segregated etc"?

Cheers,
Shafique

So men and women having the same human rights to be treated with respect while wearing the same kind of clothing is comparable to the differences between males and females in sport and why they do not always compete together? I don't find the situations comparable at all. Should we be functioning on the assumption that women are s.e.x objects for men first, and equal human beings second?

It is a known fact that women think about s.e.x and find men s.e.x.u.ally attractive, just as men think about s.e.x and find women s.e.x.u.ally attractive. Just because women don't rape men doesn't mean a woman's s.e.xual desire can't be as potent as a man's. For some reason though, the women are the ones who are expected to cover up to men's satisfaction or have to accept whatever s.e.x.u.al abuse comes their way because the men are physically stronger and can overpower them and in some cultures, the men make the rules in society.

I'm still waiting for some men to explain why showing arms, calves and hair is considered immodest for a woman, but is considered perfectly acceptable for a man.

Kanelli - why do nuns cover their hair but male priests do not?

The answer to that question answers your query.



Cheers,
Shafique

[quote="kanelli"]Here is a quote from Sheikh Taj Aldin Al-Hilali's sermon during Ramadan.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He also thinks that women should not "sway suggestively", wear make-up, or go out without wearing a hijab.

It is real nice to read the above and then read the popular press and to find out the popular press was correct all the time these are people who are still living in the dark ages. Living with white people is no good for them

Very well said Kanelli.

shafique wrote:Kanelli - why do nuns cover their hair but male priests do not?

The answer to that question answers your query.



Cheers,
Shafique

The same applies to them - there is a blatant double standard. At least monks and priests wear robes that cover their bodies as modestly as the nuns are expected to dress. That is something you don't always see on the part of men in other cases.

satan-the-redeema wrote:

kanelli wrote:Here is a quote from Sheikh Taj Aldin Al-Hilali's sermon during Ramadan.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He also thinks that women should not "sway suggestively", wear make-up, or go out without wearing a hijab.

It is real nice to read the above and then read the popular press and to find out the popular press was correct all the time these are people who are still living in the dark ages. Living with white people is no good for them

white people...do u even read the shit u write

that sheikh wouldnt be too fond of me then

kanelli wrote:So men and women having the same human rights to be treated with respect while wearing the same kind of clothing is comparable to the differences between males and females in sport and why they do not always compete together? I don't find the situations comparable at all. Should we be functioning on the assumption that women are s.e.x objects for men first, and equal human beings second?

It is a known fact that women think about s.e.x and find men s.e.x.u.ally attractive, just as men think about s.e.x and find women s.e.x.u.ally attractive. Just because women don't rape men doesn't mean a woman's s.e.xual desire can't be as potent as a man's. For some reason though, the women are the ones who are expected to cover up to men's satisfaction or have to accept whatever s.e.x.u.al abuse comes their way because the men are physically stronger and can overpower them and in some cultures, the men make the rules in society.

I'm still waiting for some men to explain why showing arms, calves and hair is considered immodest for a woman, but is considered perfectly acceptable for a man.

so k if we can set benchmarks to what is modest and what is not..a girl with mini skirt u set her as attention seeker n might deserve all the se.xu.al comments coming her way bt can't she simply like wearing miniskirts and doesn't want any attention ,who r we to set rules and judge. who r we to also judge a person that feels comfortable in modesty in covering her hair face or arms. why do u think men made these rules in society, as we believe it..its from the creator he is not unreasonable and understands the mankind’s weakness .
n when u say other cultures r u comparing western and eastern (non Islamic/Islamic) cuz dear I've tasted both while uncovering my hair,my arms n legs and there were respectable men from both sides and unrespectable prevs from both side.

kanelli wrote:
The same applies to them - there is a blatant double standard. At least monks and priests wear robes that cover their bodies as modestly as the nuns are expected to dress. That is something you don't always see on the part of men in other cases.

Umm - do you think 'dishdashs', kandooras, Shalwar Kameez's are more revealing then a monk's robe?

But at the end of the day, you are right - Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews and other religions do have double standards when it comes to covering of hair. We see it in the same way as the other double standard of covering up bare chests - you obviously do not.

Let's agree to disagree on this point.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

kanelli wrote:
The same applies to them - there is a blatant double standard. At least monks and priests wear robes that cover their bodies as modestly as the nuns are expected to dress. That is something you don't always see on the part of men in other cases.

Umm - do you think 'dishdashs', kandooras, Shalwar Kameez's are more revealing then a monk's robe?

But at the end of the day, you are right - Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews and other religions do have double standards when it comes to covering of hair. We see it in the same way as the other double standard of covering up bare chests - you obviously do not.

Let's agree to disagree on this point.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I never said those were more revealing at all. Shafique, the men are not expected to wear dishdashs, kandooras, Shalwar Kameez's in Australia and many other non-Islamic countries. Even here in Dubai you can find women covered from head to toe walking next to their husbands who are dressed in a t-shirt/tank top, shorts and baseball hat. It is excellent when I do see the men dressed from wrist to ankle like the women are - at least those men are being fair and giving the same respect to their religion and wife as they expect their wife to follow. The orthodox Jewish men I encountered in Toronto and Montreal were also as conservatively dressed as their women were. As for Christians, there is no dress code for Christian men and women - they wear whatever they want.

Shaf, I don't understand what you are saying about bare chests. Please clarify. It is my personal opinion that the only appropriate public place for bare chests is the beach or one's own backyard or home. Sure, bare chests are shown in public advertising in many countries, but that is acceptable there. How else do you advertise swimwear and lingerie? In some cultures, complete nudity is not a problem. I'm quite used to going to the sauna buck naked and then going out to the lake to swim buck naked. In Finland if you are going fishing on a lake you can easily see groups of men or women in the distance who are swimming buck naked after going to the sauna at the cottage. It is no big deal! You can't get more equal than being equally completely naked. These kinds of cultures are ones where men are more holistically respectful of women because they have seen naked women since they were children. They see women as people, not just s.e.x.ual objects that need to be covered up.

If some cultures or religions call for women to be very conservative in their dress, the men should also follow that rule and be respectful of the women. The Australian cleric was not respectful in the slightest with his comments. Is a man who does not cover up from wrist to ankle also not comparable to a piece of meat that cats are tempted to eat? If men are not being raped or abused for wearing shorts and t-shirts and having uncovered hair, then why should women be subjected to that? What right to do men have to punish a woman for her choice of dress? Either they are respectful men or they aren't - that is the nitty gritty.

mema, I never said that women DESERVE men making comments, they just shouldn't be surprised if some badly behaving men do it. Men should not make s.e.x.ually harrassing comments at all, but some pigish men do. If women want to wear mini-skirts and skimpy tops and show their midriffs they cannot realistically expect all men to just ignore them. It is the same for men who walk around without a shirt on - women will pay more attention (if they look good without a shirt that is ).

All I am saying is we need some common sense, some questioning of previously accepted double standards, and some more respect for women as human beings.

Clarifications to previous post:
1. kandooras etc are what many Muslim men wear - they are as concealing as any hijab etc, with the exception of the hair.

2. Orthodox Christian women, Orthodox Jewish Women, Catholic nuns (with exceptions now) all cover their hair out of modesty, but do not require men to cover to the same extent. (hence a 'double standard')

3. Baring of chests is also subject to 'double standards' when it comes to men and women. Most cultures would view a bare male chest as less immodest than a bare woman's chest.

4. It is a matter of opinion whether covering of the hair falls under 'acceptable double standard' of point 3. or unacceptable double standard. Naturists and some tribes in Africa and South America and Far East will argue there is nothing wrong with not covering the chest at all.. others will disagree. Islam teaches that the hair is part of a lady's beauty and should not be on open display to all and sundry - it is a teaching shared by those of point 2 above.

I hope I've clarified what I meant in the previous post.

Cheers,
Shafique

I just did a quick Google on incidences of rape in Finland and came up with this article:

http://www.independent.org/publications ... sp?id=1300

The US has the highest rate (per 100,000), and Japan the lowest. Turkey is near the bottom, whilst Norway, Sweden are near the top.



COUNTRY RAPE RATE
Austria 6.35
Belgium 7.83
Czeck Republic 4.85
Denmark 9.32
Finland 11.18
France 14.45
Germany 9.13
Greece 2.29
Ireland 6.01
Japan 1.78
Korea, South 4.86
Netherlands 10.39
Norway 15.12
Poland 6.21
Portugal 1.41
Slovakia 2.84
Spain 3.09
Sweden 22.58
Switzerland 5.61
Turkey 2.33
United Kingdom 14.69
United States 32.05

But wait a minute....what about the 'Australian' way of life? People in this continent naturally dress they way they do, because of their mainly 'sun-drenched' lifestyles. It's a way of life there, so should these idiots making ridiculous comments like this Imam not be respecting the 'Aussie' way of life? Should they not be integrating? Why is he forcing his views and his religion on people and a place where it is the minority?

People have been calling for him to be banned and deported and rightly so.

Chocs - the guy is Egyptian born and can't speak English fluently (I finally found out in a BBC news item). From the reports - wasn't he telling muslim women to wear the hijab, not wear makeup and 'sway' etc?

I don't agree with what he said - it was too extreme - but if the intention was to explain (again) what Islam demands of believers in terms of dress, then he is entitled to his views.

Note that he did not say that it was ok for Muslim, or any other, men to go out and abuse women. That would be a deporting matter.

He inarticulately said that women who did not dress modestly, in his eyes, were attracting attention and contributing to the harrassment. Many will disagree with this and find it offensive - but is it a deporting matter?

Had he said it was ok to ogle, molest and harrass women wearing skimpy clothes - then he should be prosecuted and deported. But I don't think he said this - did he?

Cheers,
Shafique

So Shafique, you are assuming that rape is high in those countries because women don't cover every inch of skin except hands, feet and face?

I grew up playing with mostly boys on my street when I was a child, I lived on a co-ed floor in university residence where everything was shared, including the common bathroom, and I have always been free to dress how I like. I have never been raped. If women are in such danger if not covered from head to toe - how do you explain women like me? Am I to assume that the men where I come from are dysfunctional because they are not following the supposed divinely appointed differences between men and women by not being mindlessly enticed into rape by women who dare to mix with them as equals and dress as they please?

kanelli wrote:Women who wear really tight clothes that have half of their breasts hanging out also are asking for men to pay attention to them. It is universal that women who dress this way are going to attract men, in fact most women who dress like that are trying to attract men. Not to be raped, but to get attention for a date perhaps.

This is true,

However, you are disregarding the 1 in ten men (or what ever the actual ratio is) who is not an up standing, well balanced member of society and is mental capable of committing rape.

Would not women as a whole rather protect themselves from him?

(Just to clarify, as far as I am concerned wearing hijab and abbaya is not my business. However, Modest dress is a must for any man or woman. Regardless of where they are from, or their theological beliefs. If you must, leave your skimpy clothing for somewhere you know you are safe.)

shafique wrote:
That's another thing men keep getting wrong - we approach these women dressed skimpily and get the retort "just because we dress this way doesn't make us hoes"

Don't get me wrong - you women are absolutely right - just because you dress that way doesn't make you hoes.

Buuuut - this is where it's confusing for guys....... you're are dressing like hoes.... I mean it's like if Dave Chappelle dressed like a cop and stood at a corner, someone runs up to me and says 'come quick I need help'. I would just reply 'just because I dress like THIS doesn't make me a cop!'

I mean come on ladies - you are wearing the hoes uniform!!

This is perfect, and so very true.

Every time I read a post of yours I am amazed.

kanelli wrote:So Shafique, you are assuming that rape is high in those countries because women don't cover every inch of skin except hands, feet and face?

Kanelli - I only posted the stats as you said that nudity was not a big issue in Finland, which led to women not being objectified:

"These kinds of cultures are ones where men are more holistically respectful of women because they have seen naked women since they were children. "


I provided the source of the figures and commented on the high and lowest countries.

In Japan, nudity is a big taboo and they have the lowest rates of rape cited, whereas I was surprised to see the nordic countries high up on the list (where as you rightly say nudity is not a big issue).

Japan is a quite misogynistic society - women are definitely not equal.

I would have a hard time calling the high rape rates in Sweden, Norway as evidence for a 'holistic respect for women'.

The only 'muslim' country on the list is Turkey.

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:I grew up playing with mostly boys on my street when I was a child, I lived on a co-ed floor in university residence where everything was shared, including the common bathroom, and I have always been free to dress how I like. I have never been raped. If women are in such danger if not covered from head to toe - how do you explain women like me? Am I to assume that the men where I come from are dysfunctional because they are not following the supposed divinely appointed differences between men and women by not being mindlessly enticed into rape by women who dare to mix with them as equals and dress as they please?

This could be viewed as a question of risk analysis. We all agree rape is a bad thing and we should do what we can to prevent it - at an individual level and at a societal level. All societies have laws which punish rapists - so it is viewed as a crime.

It now becomes a value judgement as to how people want to modify their behaviour to reduce the risk of rape.

One extreme is to decide to never be alone with a single male who is not a relative in a situation that could lead to the act. Another is to dress like many religious women around the world dress, and limit social contact with men to work situations and family outings etc (eg. not get drunk at bars alone etc).

We should be grateful that rape is a minority crime - the majority of women do not experience this heinous crime. However - even though only a tiny minority of women are abused this way, we find it sufficiently heinous that we would want to prevent it, if we can.

Wearing seatbelts saves lives - but there are many, many people that can rightly say "I've never had an accident... explain that to me".

The frightening thing though Kanelli is the fact that rape charities in the US and Europe all say that Rape is much UNDER-REPORTED - so the actual figures quoted are much higher.

Common sense tells me that modestly dressed Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Muslim women have lower rates of rape than immodestly dressed women (all other things equal) - primarily down to the former avoiding situations that could lead to rape (and not necessarily because of their dress).

Cheers,
Shafique

I think its about time (in Europe + US+Aus'lasia) we had Western Educated, Religious scholars for every religion, in particular Islam. I believe there are very suitable candidates in each country in Europe and N America who have sufficient understanding of their domestic cultures and sensitivities as well as deep understanding of their faith. Take for example, Hamza Yousuf in the states. He is a communicator, but also understands the complexities in his homeland so therefore his speeches are less provocative, even if he tries to convey the same message.

Yousuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) in Britain is a fantastic communcator who maybe not clergy, but has some good knowledge about his faith. Persons like him, could be utilised to draw up and "politically correct" drafts of speeches so in future these situations do not get hijacked by the tabloids or more importantly cause offence to the domestic populous.
It is important to remember, that its not just the host nations which have to respect the sensitivies of the ethnic/foreign groups, but the opposite too.

Now this is not an attack, im often accused of being a "Muslimist" or "Islamist", but i feel that the Aussie cleric is a classic example of someone who has poor communication skills and is/was completely unaware of the response their speeches would bring. Either that or he was just an absolute plank, and disrespected the feelings of the people in his homeland. He is entitled to his own opinion, but he is a mufti and therefore represents a large group. In a nation, riddled with racism and now Anti islamic sentiments, it was an extremely stupid thing to do.

Just look George W. Bush, the Pope, and many others have made silly mistakes with the speeches, I believe the Clerics can also take this opportunity to avoid such actions by hiring a few speech therapists.

rvp i agree 100000000000000000000000%

Shaf,

A few points regarding your reply to my post.

First off if the guy can hardly speak English, then what is he doing residing in Australia in the first place? Aren't all immigrants expected to show proficiency in the English language? Yes they are.

Secondly he described women who do not wear head scarves as 'uncovered meat, inviting attack'. Sorry but to me this is awful, he basically was saying that if a women wearing suggestive clothes gets attacked or raped then it's her own fault.

He should be thrwon out, end of.

I agree with Chocs...he is inciting, or encouraging violent acts against women by saying that if they dont cover then they will be attacked and its their own fault....

I can't stand people who interpret religion as they want...makes the religion itself look bad, as well as those who actually try to follow it correctly

Chocoholic wrote:...First off if the guy can hardly speak English, then what is he doing residing in Australia in the first place? Aren't all immigrants expected to show proficiency in the English language? Yes they are...

I'm sure this cleric's English is as good as your Arabic...

freza wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:...First off if the guy can hardly speak English, then what is he doing residing in Australia in the first place? Aren't all immigrants expected to show proficiency in the English language? Yes they are...

I'm sure this cleric's English is as good as your Arabic...

Thats a very fair point.